Kansas school board elections, 2015

Kansas's 2015 elections School boards • Municipal • Candidate ballot access

2016 → ← 2014

2015 School Board Elections

School Board Elections by State

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Elections Information

Election dates • 2015 elections • Candidate filing dates • Finance reporting • Poll opening and closing times

A total of seven Kansas school districts among America's largest school districts by enrollment held elections in 2015 for 28 seats. All of the elections were scheduled on April 7, 2015. Primary elections were held March 3, 2015, if needed to reduce the number of candidates for each office in the general election.^[1]

• The largest school district by enrollment with an election in 2015 was Wichita Public Schools with 50,339 K-12 students.
• The smallest school district by enrollment with an election in 2015 was Lawrence Public Schools with 11,828 K-12 students.
• Lawrence Public Schools had the most seats on the ballot in 2015 with five seats up for election.
• Wichita Public Schools had the fewest seats on the ballot in 2015 with three seats up for election.

The districts listed below served 174,722 K-12 students during the 2012-2013 school year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.^[2] Click on the district name for more information on the district and its school board elections.

2015 Kansas School Board Elections
District	Date	Seats up for election	Total board seats	Student enrollment
Blue Valley Unified School District 229	4/7/2015	4	7	22,162
Kansas City Kansas Public Schools	4/7/2015	4	7	20,194
Lawrence Public Schools, Kansas	4/7/2015	5	7	11,828
Olathe Public Schools Unified School District 233	4/7/2015	4	7	28,745
Shawnee Mission School District	4/7/2015	4	7	27,435
Topeka Public Schools	4/7/2015	4	7	14,019
Wichita Public Schools	4/7/2015	3	7	50,339

Trends in Kansas school board elections[edit]

See also: School boards in session: 2015 in brief

The 2015 school board elections in the state saw a higher number of candidates run per seat than the 2013 school board elections, but they had a lower number run compared to the 2011 elections. The school board elections in 2015 had the fewest number of seats go unopposed compared to the two previous years. The state's largest school districts had 28 seats up for election in 2011 and 2015, and 22 seats up for election in 2013.

The following sections analyze competitiveness and incumbency advantage in Kansas' school board elections. Some districts utilized primary elections. Details on the prevalence of primary elections from 2011 to 2015 can be found here. All of the school board elections held in the state in 2011, 2013 and 2015 were nonpartisan.

Details of the data discussed here can be found in the table below.

Competitiveness[edit]

An average of 1.86 candidates ran for each seat on the ballot in 2015, and an average of 1.41 candidates ran in 2013. The elections held in 2011 had the highest average of the three years with 2.18 candidates running per seat. The 2013 elections saw the highest percentage of unopposed seats with 54.55 percent having only one candidate file. The 2015 elections had the lowest rate of unopposed seats at 28.57 percent. A total of 32.14 percent of school board seats up for election in 2011 went unopposed.

Unopposed races[edit]

Of the 28 seats up for election in 2015, 20 saw contested races. The eight uncontested races appeared on the ballot. This was a decrease from 2013, when over half of the seats up for election were unopposed. The 2015 rate, however, was on par with 2011's, when nine out of 28 races were uncontested. No candidate races[edit] In 2015, there were no school board seats up for election that did not see at least one candidate file for the race. This was also true in 2011 and 2013.

Kansas unopposed races Year Total seats Unopposed seats Percent unopposed 2015 28 8 28.57% 2013 22 12 54.55% 2011 28 9 32.14%

Incumbency advantage[edit]

See also: School board incumbency analysis: 2015 in brief

A total of 95.45 percent of school board incumbents who ran for re-election retained their seats in 2015. Twenty-two of the 28 incumbents whose terms were up for election—78.57 percent—ran to retain their seats. Six of those incumbents ran unopposed and won additional terms. Another 15 defeated challengers to keep their seats. In 2013, 16 incumbents sought re-election, but only six saw contested races. A total of 15 incumbents retained their seats in the 2013 elections. A greater portion of incumbents saw contested races in 2011, when 14 sought re-election and only five did not face challengers. Similarly to 2013, only one incumbent failed to get re-elected in 2011. The map below details the success rates for incumbents who ran in the 2015 school board elections that were held in the largest school districts by enrollment in the U.S. The map above details the success rates of incumbent who ran to retain their school board seats in the largest school districts in each state. States depicted in gray did not hold school board elections.

Primary prevalence[edit]

If more than three candidates file for any one seat up for election on a Kansas school board, a primary must be held. In 2015, only two of the state's largest school districts required primary elections. This was the first year primary elections for school boards in Kansas were affected by 2011 Session Law Chapter 112, which reduced the number of candidates that advance to the general election from three to two.[3] None of Kansas' largest school districts' elections required primaries in 2013. One seat each in two districts required a primary in 2011.

Kansas primary prevalence Year Primaries 2015 2 2013 0 2011 2

Data table[edit]

The table below displays the statistics for school board elections in Kansas' largest school districts from 2011 to 2015.

Kansas school board elections, 2011 - 2015
Year	Total	Incumbents
Seats up	Candidates	Candidates/ seat	Unopposed seats	% unopposed	% seats won by newcomers	Sought re-election	Unopposed	Retained	% retained
2015	28	52	1.86	8	28.57%	25.00%	22	6	21	95.45%
2013	22	31	1.41	12	54.55%	31.82%	16	9	15	93.75%
2011	28	61	2.18	9	32.14%	53.57%	14	6	13	92.86%

Spotlight districts[edit]

The 2015 Kansas school board elections were all affected by changes in state funding for education. Additionally, a new law made the 2015 elections the last Kansas school board races to be held in the spring. Sex education was also a point of sometimes contentious conversations in two of Kansas' largest school districts, even leading one candidate to run in the elections. The sections below examine these issues.

State education funding changes[edit]

See also: Kansas state budget and finances

A looming state budget deficit of $600 million led the state legislature to approve a block-grant funding system to replace the state's public school funding formula.^[4] Governor of Kansas Sam Brownback (R) had proposed that $44.5 million be cut from state funding for education to make up for budgetary shortcomings on February 5, 2015.^[5]

Cuts proposed by governor[edit]

Of the total cuts Brownback suggested, $28 million would have come from elementary and secondary education funding, while another $16 million would have been taken from higher education funding.^[5]

Critics of Brownback pointed to his campaign promises supporting education in 2013. Kansas State Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D-19) called the move, “just another deception [Brownbeck] put upon the voters of Kansas." Brownback's spokesperson, however, has stated that the governor “has consistently maintained that the education funding formula is broken and reform is needed to ensure more money goes to the classroom to benefit Kansas students."^[5]

Income taxes blamed and defended[edit]

Some blamed the income tax reductions signed into law by the governor for the significant shortfall looming for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015. Income tax cuts were championed by Brownback and passed by the Legislature in 2012 and 2013. In 2015, the state had to reassess its spending and consider new forms of revenue. Possible revenue sources that were considered included raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol or changing tax assessments for farmland, gasoline, and sales and passive income.^[4] In 2013, the state collected $2.96 billion in individual income taxes, which made up 38.80 percent of the state's tax collections.^[6]

Brownback defended the income tax cuts and pushed for consumption taxes to replace lost funds in April 2015. “I still want to get away from the income tax. Over time, I would like to see us move toward the consumption basket of taxes," he stated at that time. He also voiced support for a higher sales tax. The governor remained vague about exactly which consumption taxes might be used but noted his support for tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol.^[6]

At the same time, Brownback responded to criticisms over the fact that he shared budget information prior to the legislative session with David Kensinger, his former chief of staff and current lobbyist for Reynolds American tobacco company. Brownback defended the move, saying, “What I try to do is get as much input from people as possible. I’ve tried to operate most of my public career in trying to solicit lots of input. I wish he wasn’t lobbying for that group. He’s free to do what he’s doing.”^[6]

Legislative response[edit]

In response to Brownback's proposal, the Kansas State Legislature outlined a plan in March 2015 to fund public schools with block grants for two years while they rewrite the school funding formula. According to The Kansas City Star, the block grants would provide an increase of more than $4.2 billion for the 2016-2017 school year, which would represent a 9 percent increase from the 2013-2014 allocations. Additionally, the block grants would return the 2014-2015 district allocations to the amounts they were set at before Brownback announced his planned budget cuts. Whether or not these funds actually indicate an increase in classroom spending and how the Legislature would pay for the increase in funding remained unclear as of the bill's introduction.^[4]

Democratic legislators criticized the bill, arguing that the majority of the additional funding would go toward retirement and meeting the requirements of a 2014 Kansas Supreme Court ruling mandating more funding for schools. Sen. Hensley argued, "Their proposal does not do what they claim it’s going to do. It does not allocate $300 million in new money, nor does it put more money into the classroom.”^[4]

In a 64 to 57 vote on March 13, 2015, the House of Representatives approved Senate Bill 7, a plan to overhaul the state's 23-year-old school finance system. State law required at least 63 votes in favor of the measure for it to pass the House. The bill was immediately moved back to the Senate. This prevented any motions to reconsider the House vote. On March 16, 2015, the Senate approved the revised bill 25 to 14. Because the bill sent back from the House had been a Senate bill with additions from the House, senators only had to vote yes or no to the House revisions and were not able to offer amendments. The bill was signed into law by Brownbeck on March 25, 2015.^[7][8]

The approved bill replaced the current system with block grants for two years while the funding formula is overhauled. Republican leaders argued that the state's funding formula, which is based on a per-pupil formula and includes weighting for bilingual and low-income students, was broken. Senate President Susan Wagle (R-30), who voted in favor of the old formula in 1992 and in favor of SB 7, said, "We are no longer talking about student outcomes and student achievement. We’re fighting for money."^[8]

Not all of her colleagues agreed that SB 7 was a solution to education funding woes. Some senators objected to how quickly the bill was passed and to the lack of discussion before the final Senate vote on the matter. Sen. Tom Holland (D-3) voted against the measure and said:

“	While Charles and David Koch may have won this particular battle, Kansas families can at least take some small measure of comfort in knowing that our Kansas courts — as yet uncorrupted by the supply-side ideology cancer that has metastasized Kansas’ legislative and executive branches of government — that they are keeping a watchful eye on this Legislature’s actions.[9]	”
—Sen. Tom Holland (D-3) (2015)[8]

Judicial response[edit]

Holland was referencing judicial action taken the same day the House passed SB 7, when a three-judge district court panel ordered the reopening of a school funding lawsuit that had been settled in 2014. The lawsuit was settled after the Legislature equalized funding between districts through increased allocations, but the new court order reopened the equity portion of the case. It also added new state officials to the list of defendants in the case, including the state treasurer and revisor of statutes. The panel announced that it might issue temporary orders blocking the recent legislative action if necessary "to preserve the status quo and to assure the availability of relief, if any, that might be accorded should the Court deem relief warranted.”^[8][10]

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools[edit]

See also: What was at stake in Kansas City Kansas Public Schools?

Kansas City Kansas Public Schools, which could have lost about $1.4 million as a result of Brownbeck's initial proposal, received a pointed noted in the governor's announcement of the cuts.^[5] In his statement on the matter, Brownbeck's office said, "Recent media coverage of the purchase of a $48,000 grand piano is symptomatic of the inherent flaws in the current formula. That money could and should have been used to hire another teacher to reduce class sizes and help improve academic achievement."^[11]

This statement referred to a piano recently purchased by the district to replace a piano used at Sumner Academy. District Superintendent Cynthia Lane responded to the governor's comment saying that the piano that the school replaced could no longer be repaired. The district also responded to the governor's suggestion that the funds should have been used to hire another teacher by noting that it used capital outlay funds to purchase the piano. Those funds, by law, cannot be spent on salaries.^[12]

Election date changes[edit]

Early legislative action in 2015 could have made all Kansas school board elections into partisan races held in November of even-numbered years. Those changes were not approved, but a smaller change was signed into law on June 8, 2015; House Bill 2104 changed all school board election dates to November of odd-numbered years.

HB 2104[edit]

HB 2104 was introduced to the Kansas House of Representatives on January 23, 2015, and sponsored by the House Elections Committee. The house approved the measure 69 to 54 on February 26, 2015. Following the withdrawal of a similar senate bill, HB 2104 was approved by the senate by a vote of 28 to 12.^[13]

The portion of the Conference Committee Report of the bill relating to the election date changes states:

“	The bill would move all elections for office holders of local governments currently held in the spring of odd-numbered years to the fall of odd-numbered years, with one exception (described below). In general, the elections would remain nonpartisan, although a city could choose to make its elections partisan. Sections to be added to the law, Sections 7, 8, and 13 through 16, would be cited as the Help Kansas Vote Act. Beginning in 2017, the election dates for the specified units of local government would mirror the election dates for the elections held in even-numbered years. That is, the primary election would be held on the first Tuesday in August, and the general election would be held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. The elections, to be administered by the county election officers, would be consolidated into one ballot, which would be prescribed by the Secretary of State through rules and regulations. Those entities currently with district method elective offices (i.e., cities and school districts) would retain that authority.[9]	”
—HB 2104 Conference Committee Report (2015)[14]

SB 171[edit]

On February 9, 2015, Sen. Mitch Holmes (R-33) introduced Senate Bill 171 to the Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee. The bill, as it was initially introduced, would have moved school board and other local elections to November in even-numbered years, in addition to changing school boards from their current nonpartisan status by requiring candidates to declare party affiliations.^[15]

Supporters claimed that moving the school board elections to a date when there are more elections would increase voter turnout for such races as well as reduce the costs of printing the number of current ballot variations. Others questioned whether or not a move would actually improve turnout, as it would place school board elections on an already lengthy ballot.^[16]

The bill was amended before being approved 21 to 18 by the Senate on February 26, 2015.^[15] The approved version would move school board and other local elections to the November general election date in odd-numbered years. It removed the language that would have made those elections partisan. During the debate of the revised version, Holmes expressed frustration with the resistance to moving local elections. He argued that such a move would increase voter turnout and bring greater transparency to local government, saying that such offices are "elected on a day that nobody notices."^[17]

Holmes also argued that the disproportionately white city council of Ferguson, Mo., was caused by holding off-year elections and postulated that "minorities vote better in on-cycle elections than off-cycle elections." Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau (D-29), the first African American woman elected to the State Senate and one of the two African American members of the body, dismissed this argument, saying, “I don’t live in Ferguson. I don’t know anybody who lived there. ... We’re here in Kansas."^[17]

On March 4, 2015, the revised Senate bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. The House Elections Committee recommended the revised bill be approved with some amendments regarding date changes in the law on March 19, 2015. The measure was withdrawn from the Senate calendar shortly thereafter.^[15]

Lawrence Public Schools[edit]

See also: What was at stake in Lawrence Public Schools?

On the same day SB 171 was introduced, the Lawrence Board of Education passed a resolution opposing the measure. Six of the board's seven members voted in favor of the resolution: Randy Masten was not present for the meeting and, therefore, did not vote on the matter. Board President Shannon Kimball stated, "Our current election cycle falls very nicely in line with the school's fiscal and academic year." Member Vanessa Sanburn questioned the arguments in favor of the bill, saying, "I can't imagine that making the ballot longer is going to increase the turnout for our race."^[16]

The bill could have had other consequences beyond voter participation in its original form. Board members Rick Ingram and Bob Byers, who are both state employees of Kansas University and Kansas Department for Children and Families, respectively, expressed concern that they would not be able to run for office if the bill makes the board a partisan office.^[16]

Sex education[edit]

Sex education curriculum was under discussion in Lawrence Public Schools and Shawnee Mission School District. While school board members in Lawrence have been strong supporters of changing their curriculum to the national standards for sex education, portions of the curriculum in Shawnee have outraged some parents and even led one to file for the election.

Shawnee Mission School District[edit]

See also: What was at stake in Shawnee Mission School District?

In early 2014, Mark Ellis questioned the school district's sex education curriculum after his daughter brought home a picture of a poster that was part of the curriculum at Hocker Grove Middle School. At the top of the poster, the question "“How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?" was written, and beneath it several actions were listed, some of which Ellis found upsetting. In an interview he stated, “[It] goes back to who approved this? You know this had to pass through enough hands that someone should have said, ‘Wait a minute, these are 13-year-old kids, we do not need to be this in-depth with this sexual education type of program.’”^[18]

District spokeswoman Leigh Anne Neal stated that the poster was part of the district's middle school health and science materials, but it was meant to be part of a lesson, saying, “Without the context of teacher-led discussion, I could see that there might be some cause for concern." District Superintendent Dr. Jim Hinson later suspended the use of the curriculum, which came from the "Making A Difference" instructional resource.^[18]

Survey responses[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's school board candidate survey

Eleven of the 52 candidates running for a school board seat in Kansas' largest school districts in the 2015 elections responded to Ballotpedia's school board candidate survey. The following sections display their answers to questions about top priorities and education issues.

Top priorities[edit]

When asked what her top priorities would be if elected, Cindy Bowling, Position 3 incumbent on the Blue Valley Unified School District 229 Board of Education, stated:

“	We are facing challenging financial times in the state of Kansas. Blue Valley has a long record of excellent education, and we have been fortunate to have our patrons support local option budgets and bond referendums to supplement our funding. As with any budget, we must always look for ways to ensure that our spending is both efficient and meets the needs of our students and patrons. We must re-evaluate out our current budget based on needs and benefits rather than history.[9]	”
—Cindy Bowling (2015)[19]

Larry Fotovich, challenger for the Position 3 seat on the Blue Valley Unified School District 229 Board of Education, said the following:

“	My top priority would be prevent further looting of the district's funds by the governor and legislature and to find a creative way to enlist the help of students, parents and staff to persuade our state elected officials to restore proper levels of funding.[9]	”
—Larry Fotovich (2015)[20]

Blue Valley Unified School District 229 Board of Education Position 1 incumbent Pam Robinson stated the following as her top priorities:

“	State revenue is under projected amounts. Schools are feeling serious political and financial pressure. I have been on the board for some of the district's most successful years. Our schools are recognized as being some of the best in the nation. Making financial decisions based on what is best for our students will be my first priority. We will need to look for additional ways to offer an "Education Beyond Expectations" with fewer dollars.[9]	”
—Pam Robinson (2015)[21]

The top priorities for Bob Byers, former incumbent on the Lawrence Public Schools Board of Education, stated:

“	In the beginning it would be to provide a child centered view on the budgetary situation facing the district. By involving the community in assist in focusing the board on directions in term of budgetary decisions.[9]	”
—Bob Byers (2015)[22]

When asked what his top priorities would be if elected, Lawrence Public Schools Board of Education incumbent Marcel Harmon stated:

“	My top priority is to both listen to and communicate with the community, as well as collaboratively work with my fellow board members, the administrators and district personnel. Beyond that I’m not sure I have a “top” priority. An immediate priority is school funding – advocating with the legislature during the remainder of this session, adjusting the remainder of the budget based on potential cuts to the 2014-2015 school year and then soon after budgeting for next year based on the outcomes in Topeka. After that comes the areas I’ve been assigned to as a board member and have the skills/experience to best address, such as the new sustainability goal, facilities issues (including the bond implementation) and science standards implementation.[9]	”
—Marcel J. Harmon (2015)[23]

Incumbent Rick Ingram of the Lawrence Public Schools Board of Education responded with this statement:

“	To help all children achieve while also helping to overcome achievement gaps. To provide an equatable learning environment in each classroom so that all kids have an opportunity. And, if we need to cut budgets to do so in a way that does not harm children.[9]	”
—Rick Ingram (2015)[24]

Lawrence Public Schools Board of Education challenger Norine Spears did not reply to the question, though she did provide other responses to the survey.^[25]

LeEtta Felter, District 1 incumbent on the Olathe Public Schools Unified School District 233 Board of Education, stated:

“	I am the current President of the Olathe School Board. My priority would be to continue to work hard to make sure that our district remains the outstanding K-12 district that it is and to continually improve.[9]	”
—LeEtta Felter (2015)[26]

Brad Stratton, winner of the Position 7 seat on the Shawnee Mission School District Board of Education, said the following were his top priorities:

“	The Shawnee Mission School District has delivered excellent learning and education to students for many decades. My priority is to see that the district is moving forward, staying ahead of the curve and not resting on past successes. Additionally, I will work toward fostering a culture of effective and efficient delivery of top quality education through a combination of high quality educators and state of the art technology.[9]	”
—Brad Stratton (2015)[27]

The top priorities for Topeka Public Schools Board of Education Position 5 challenger Scott Holloman were:

“	Retaining teachers and making the district a coveted place to teach in and a premier place to learn.[9]	”
—Scott Holloman (2015)[28]

Michael Capps, challenger for the at-large seat on the Wichita Public Schools Board of Education, responded with this statement:

“	Succeed with what we have. Kansas legislature continues to debate the funding of our public schools. For years, our district has continued to argue how it cannot function without more money. However, year after year, the district does continue to function and continues to create successful students. It is time to stop complaining about funding, and get to the business of growing our district, with the resources we have been given. It is time to think outside the box and look to our community, to our educators for ideas, suggestions and methods to creating new pockets of success. The time has arrived to begin taking care of our staff, in training and pay, without using the budget as a scape-goat to doing nothing. The time has arrived to succeed with what we have.[9]	”
—Michael Capps (2015)[29]

Ranking the issues[edit]

The candidates were asked to rank the following issues by importance in the school district, with 1 being the most important and 7 being the least important. This table displays the candidates' average rankings as well as the highest and lowest rankings for each issue.

Issue importance ranking
Issues	Average ranking	Highest ranking	Lowest ranking
Expanding arts education	5.45	4	7
Expanding career-technical education	3.73	2	6
Balancing or maintaining the district's budget	1.82	1	5
Improving college readiness	3	1	6
Closing the achievement gap	2.82	1	6
Improving education for special needs students	4.36	2	6
Expanding school choice options	6.82	5	7

Positions on the issues[edit]

The candidates were asked an additional 10 short answer and multiple choice questions regarding significant issues in education. Links to those responses can be found below.

Cindy Bowling survey responses Larry Fotovich survey responses Pam Robinson survey responses Bob Byers survey responses

Marcel Harmon survey responses Rick Ingram survey responses Norine Spears survey responses LeEtta Felter survey responses

Brad Stratton survey responses Scott Holloman survey responses Michael Capps survey responses

State profile[edit]

Demographic data for Kansas
	Kansas	U.S.
Total population:	2,906,721	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	81,759	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	85.2%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.8%	12.6%
Asian:	2.6%	5.1%
Native American:	0.8%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.1%	0.2%
Two or more:	3.3%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	11.2%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	90.2%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$52,205	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	15%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Kansas. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Kansas

Kansas voted Republican in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

More Kansas coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Kansas
• United States congressional delegations from Kansas
• Public policy in Kansas
• Endorsers in Kansas
• Kansas fact checks
• More...

Academic performance[edit]

Education terms
For more information on education policy terms, see this article.
School board elections portal Glossary of education terms School choice on the ballot Education on the ballot

See also: Public education in Kansas

NAEP scores[edit]

See also: NAEP scores by state

The National Center for Education Statistics provides state-by-state data on student achievement levels in mathematics and reading in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The chart below presents the percentage of fourth and eighth grade students that scored at or above proficient in reading and math during the 2012-2013 school year. Compared to three neighboring states (Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma), Kansas had the highest share of fourth and eighth grade students who scored at or above proficient in math.^[30]

Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013
	Math - Grade 4	Math - Grade 8	Reading - Grade 4	Reading - Grade 8
Kansas	48%	40%	38%	36%
Missouri	39%	33%	35%	36%
Nebraska	45%	36%	37%	37%
Oklahoma	36%	25%	30%	29%
U.S. averages	41%	34%	34%	34%
Source: United States Department of Education, ED Data Express, "State Tables"

Graduation, ACT and SAT scores[edit]

See also: Graduation rates by groups in state and ACT and SAT scores in the United States

The following table shows the graduation rates and average composite ACT and SAT scores for Kansas and surrounding states during the 2012-2013 school year. All statements made in this section refer to that school year.^[30][31][32]

In the United States, public schools reported graduation rates that averaged to about 81.4 percent. About 54 percent of all students in the country took the ACT, while 50 percent reported taking the SAT. The average national composite scores for those tests were 20.9 out of a possible 36 for the ACT and 1,498 out of a possible 2,400 for the SAT.^[33]

Kansas schools reported a graduation rate of 85.7 percent during the 2012-2013 school year, tying with Missouri.

In Kansas, more students took the ACT than the SAT in 2013, earning an average ACT score of 21.8.

Comparison table for graduation rates and test scores, 2012-2013
State	Graduation rate, 2013		Average ACT composite, 2013		Average SAT composite, 2013
	Percent	Quintile ranking**	Score	Participation rate	Score	Participation rate
Kansas	85.7%	Second	21.8	75%	1,752	6%
Missouri	85.7%	Second	21.6	74%	1,773	4%
Nebraska	88.5%	First	21.5	84%	1,734	4%
Oklahoma	84.8%	Second	20.8	75%	1,689	5%
United States	81.4%		20.9	54%	1498	50%
**Graduation rates for states in the first quintile ranked in the top 20 percent nationally. Similarly, graduation rates for states in the fifth quintile ranked in the bottom 20 percent nationally. Sources: United States Department of Education, "ED Data Express" ACT.org, "2013 ACT National and State Scores" The Commonwealth Foundation, "SAT scores by state, 2013"

Dropout rate[edit]

See also: Public high school dropout rates by state for a full comparison of dropout rates by group in all states

The high school event dropout rate indicates the proportion of students who were enrolled at some time during the school year and were expected to be enrolled in grades 9–12 in the following school year but were not enrolled by October 1 of the following school year. Students who have graduated, transferred to another school, died, moved to another country, or who are out of school due to illness are not considered dropouts. The average public high school event dropout rate for the United States remained constant at 3.3 percent for both school year 2010–2011 and school year 2011–2012. The event dropout rate for Kansas was lower than the national average at 2.3 percent in the 2010-2011 school year, and 2.1 percent in the 2011-2012 school year.^[34]

See also[edit]

Kansas	School Boards	News and Analysis
Public education in Kansas List of school districts in Kansas	School board elections, 2015 List of school board elections in 2015 Candidate filing deadlines, 2015 Campaign finance deadlines, 2015	Hot tub Gatorade, turnout in Peoria and the Wisconsin state budget... (April 8, 2015)

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Kansas school districts List of school districts in Kansas • School board elections in Kansas Kansas State Department of Education • Public education in Kansas